4 ms·

I don't think "offline" in this context means that the problem was because the device couldn't connect to the internet. It sounds like the bug drained the batte

I don't think "offline" in this context means that the problem was because the device couldn't connect to the internet. It sounds like the bug drained the battery which prevented it from functioning.

kordless 11y ago
The bug probably affect the Nest's ability to do low power charging using the fan wire. Evidently, as long as the fan runs, the Nest will charge at a lower rate than you get with the common wire hooked up. That is, unless you release some bad code and didn't do a full CI/CD run on a test unit and wait 2 weeks for the battery to go dead to figure out there was a bug. Which hit me on the 8th at exactly 9:29AM. It was FREEZING in the house. Dead nest. Took me about 10 minutes to look up the issue and 5 to hook up common. Any code that touches battery or recharge methods should throw a red flag immediately and have a 1 month wait time slapped on them. Also, there should be a dedicated Test Nest for each release known to be "in production".
- radiorental 11y ago
  This is the heart of the problem. It's not 'the cloud', unnecessarily complex feature sets, or any of the other complaints being thrown around It's that the software was not thoroughly tested. Nest cut corners in R&D. Consumers are also at fault for not taking the time to understand the hack job Nest has done to trickle charge the device when no common wire is available. Those with 'mission critical' needs (babies, elderly, 2nd home) rolled the dice and are as much at fault as Nest IMHO. As more devices become 'smart', the companies that invest in design & testing will become more trusted. But also, consumers need to appreciate that a device is only as smart as the infrastructure it's connected too. Any limitations in your house need a fallback plan. (I'm actually glad that trickle charge hack has come home to roost)
  - eropple 11y ago
    > Consumers are also at fault I can't disagree with this more. When you are trying to replace a thermostat, the onus is on you to do right by your customers. And that may be (is!) difficult. But the customer is never at fault for trusting you, but you can be at fault for abusing their trust.
    - kordless 11y ago
      Your assertion implies a one way trust channel. Company ---trust---> customer. While money is stored trust, it can be used in a trusted or untrusted way. This implies there is little to no customer ---trust---> company. Most thermostats are trustworthy because they are simple. I bought a fancy thermostat back in the early 90s that had a small LCD screen on it and it would run a schedule if you set it. I eventually replaced it with a regular thermostat because it was a pain in the ass to adjust the temperature with button pushes and the hall that it was in was dark most of the time. This is the extent of customer trust given to a company. The ability to control the Nest with a dial and from my shell on my computer are great reasons for me to trust the Nest and buy it. That said, I'm also cognizant of the fact it needs to connect to the Internet to allow control from the CLI, do updates and set the schedule correctly. The onus may be on a company to do right by its customers, but the fact is that mistakes can and will occur if the requirements are such that a remote update and control system be in place for the product. I think @radiorental is correct that customers don't take the time to understand that having a device which provides X features comes with Y risk associated with it. Nest will always be at risk for "being at fault" for a problem that will occur again in the future. Customers need to understand that a time savings on one side may mean a time cost on the other, when Nest isn't able to cover it for them. I might point out that anyone who disagrees with this assertion assumes that Nest should not make mistakes. Assuming a complex system is perfect, or can achieve perfection, is irrational.
    - radiorental 11y ago
      To put this into perspective. The competing product https://www.ecobee.com/ https://www.ecobee.com/ makes no attempt to power itself via trickle current. Nest, in an effort to widen the install base went out on a limb. And that's fine but a little research would reveal not insignificant user feedback with installation issues I'm putting some onus on the customer to understand all the pros & cons with a given product. With the state of smart devices in the home at the moment, homeowners are effectively system integrators. You can't have your cake and eat it. Would you put t-mobile at fault for selling a phone to a user who didn't check the coverage map first? Do you read Amazon reviews for any given product you purchase there, or assume all manufactures are selling the absolute best mankind can produce? The Nest is not fit for installation in a huge portion of homes. The trickle charge tries to side step lack of common wire. When it works it's fine, but it's not hard to find reports of weird installation problems.
- lucaspiller 11y ago
  Did they actually say it was a bug in the battery / recharge code? It sounds like they could have just added some generic code that prevented the device from going into deep sleep.
  - kordless 11y ago
    I haven't heard that, but I assumed one of three things went when it happened: 1. the Nest was fully charged when I bought it and then was unable to charge itself enough from the fan running and went dead, 2. something happened to the wiring on my heating system to cause it to not charge, or 3. something happened to the Nest itself. The first assumption was addressed by several heat and air contractors on Youtube, so I hooked up the common 24v wire to ensure it would charge and it immediately started working again. This required me to hook up the wire on the heating unit itself, and the Nest. Given I've worked with electronics and have built parts of houses, done wiring, plumbing, etc., it was a 5 minute job for me. The Nest was built to provide a feature by which it could charge itself off the latent, low power current that runs through the fan wire while it is running. This is one of those cases where more features equals more things to break when you push.

I don't think "offline" in this context means that the problem was because the device couldn't connect to the internet. It sounds like the bug drained the battery which prevented it from functioning.

kordless 11y ago

The bug probably affect the Nest's ability to do low power charging using the fan wire. Evidently, as long as the fan runs, the Nest will charge at a lower rate than you get with the common wire hooked up. That is, unless you release some bad code and didn't do a full CI/CD run on a test unit and wait 2 weeks for the battery to go dead to figure out there was a bug. Which hit me on the 8th at exactly 9:29AM. It was FREEZING in the house. Dead nest. Took me about 10 minutes to look up the issue and 5 to hook up common. Any code that touches battery or recharge methods should throw a red flag immediately and have a 1 month wait time slapped on them. Also, there should be a dedicated Test Nest for each release known to be "in production".

radiorental 11y ago
This is the heart of the problem. It's not 'the cloud', unnecessarily complex feature sets, or any of the other complaints being thrown around It's that the software was not thoroughly tested. Nest cut corners in R&D. Consumers are also at fault for not taking the time to understand the hack job Nest has done to trickle charge the device when no common wire is available. Those with 'mission critical' needs (babies, elderly, 2nd home) rolled the dice and are as much at fault as Nest IMHO. As more devices become 'smart', the companies that invest in design & testing will become more trusted. But also, consumers need to appreciate that a device is only as smart as the infrastructure it's connected too. Any limitations in your house need a fallback plan. (I'm actually glad that trickle charge hack has come home to roost)
- eropple 11y ago
  > Consumers are also at fault I can't disagree with this more. When you are trying to replace a thermostat, the onus is on you to do right by your customers. And that may be (is!) difficult. But the customer is never at fault for trusting you, but you can be at fault for abusing their trust.
  - kordless 11y ago
    Your assertion implies a one way trust channel. Company ---trust---> customer. While money is stored trust, it can be used in a trusted or untrusted way. This implies there is little to no customer ---trust---> company. Most thermostats are trustworthy because they are simple. I bought a fancy thermostat back in the early 90s that had a small LCD screen on it and it would run a schedule if you set it. I eventually replaced it with a regular thermostat because it was a pain in the ass to adjust the temperature with button pushes and the hall that it was in was dark most of the time. This is the extent of customer trust given to a company. The ability to control the Nest with a dial and from my shell on my computer are great reasons for me to trust the Nest and buy it. That said, I'm also cognizant of the fact it needs to connect to the Internet to allow control from the CLI, do updates and set the schedule correctly. The onus may be on a company to do right by its customers, but the fact is that mistakes can and will occur if the requirements are such that a remote update and control system be in place for the product. I think @radiorental is correct that customers don't take the time to understand that having a device which provides X features comes with Y risk associated with it. Nest will always be at risk for "being at fault" for a problem that will occur again in the future. Customers need to understand that a time savings on one side may mean a time cost on the other, when Nest isn't able to cover it for them. I might point out that anyone who disagrees with this assertion assumes that Nest should not make mistakes. Assuming a complex system is perfect, or can achieve perfection, is irrational.
  - radiorental 11y ago
    To put this into perspective. The competing product https://www.ecobee.com/ https://www.ecobee.com/ makes no attempt to power itself via trickle current. Nest, in an effort to widen the install base went out on a limb. And that's fine but a little research would reveal not insignificant user feedback with installation issues I'm putting some onus on the customer to understand all the pros & cons with a given product. With the state of smart devices in the home at the moment, homeowners are effectively system integrators. You can't have your cake and eat it. Would you put t-mobile at fault for selling a phone to a user who didn't check the coverage map first? Do you read Amazon reviews for any given product you purchase there, or assume all manufactures are selling the absolute best mankind can produce? The Nest is not fit for installation in a huge portion of homes. The trickle charge tries to side step lack of common wire. When it works it's fine, but it's not hard to find reports of weird installation problems.
lucaspiller 11y ago
Did they actually say it was a bug in the battery / recharge code? It sounds like they could have just added some generic code that prevented the device from going into deep sleep.
- kordless 11y ago
  I haven't heard that, but I assumed one of three things went when it happened: 1. the Nest was fully charged when I bought it and then was unable to charge itself enough from the fan running and went dead, 2. something happened to the wiring on my heating system to cause it to not charge, or 3. something happened to the Nest itself. The first assumption was addressed by several heat and air contractors on Youtube, so I hooked up the common 24v wire to ensure it would charge and it immediately started working again. This required me to hook up the wire on the heating unit itself, and the Nest. Given I've worked with electronics and have built parts of houses, done wiring, plumbing, etc., it was a 5 minute job for me. The Nest was built to provide a feature by which it could charge itself off the latent, low power current that runs through the fan wire while it is running. This is one of those cases where more features equals more things to break when you push.